#Directive Principles of State Policy

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Keith Edwards at No Lies Detected:

Fascism doesn’t come for every generation, but it has come for ours.  This is not a fight on the beaches of Normandy, but in our own country. This article begins a series on what opposing Donald Trump and his movement can look like. I hope you will join me as these progress.

[...]

Do not leave. Faced with the might of the United States government aligned against you, you might consider resigning preemptively to avoid the humiliation of inevitable termination. This is counterproductive for at least two reasons: If you leave, you save Trump Administration officials the time and effort of identifying you, which otherwise could have taken months or years. Second, your principled stand would likely only result in your replacement by an unprincipled Trump loyalist. By staying on, you may find yourself helping to implement policies you find hateful, but by refusing to leave, you can ensure that you have some influence on those policies, because then you can...

Delay. Delay. Delay. Waiting out the enemy until he moves on, gives up, or forgets is a time-honored strategy not just among civil servants but also history’s best generals. That email about a proposed rule change to healthcare protections? Bury it in everyone’s inbox by sending it late. A meeting on reviewing the U.S. government’s foreign aid commitments to a region you oversee? Oops, you’ll be out that day! That agency conference your political-appointee boss requested you arrange? Next month didn’t fit everyone’s schedule, so you had to push it to after the new year! Slow-walking is the classic tool in any bureaucrat’s toolbox, and in the next Trump Administration, you can use it in defense of the Constitution.

Be intentionally incompetent. As a career employee, you likely have always had the advantage of knowing your workplace better than your politically appointed overlords. This is perhaps your most potent weapon against Trump. Draft rules unlikely to survive judicial review. Favor lengthy rulemaking or review processes over expedited ones. Complete tasks sequentially rather than in parallel to draw out timelines. Add complexity, stakeholders, and process wherever possible. In short, exploit the knowledge gap you hold over your bosses to diminish, defuse, and defeat their plans.

Leak. Federal employees have the right to report what they believe to be illegal or abusive of authority to their agency’s inspector general (IG) without fear of retaliation. Trump however has singled out IGs for replacement after one played a pivotal role in his first impeachment, so the availability of this option may depend on how politically prominent your agency is. Fortunately, you can anonymously tip prominent news outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post, which boast extensive investigative units and employ rigorous safeguards to protect sources’ identities. You can also seek out sympathetic elected officials, such as Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee, whose main function is investigation of the federal government. (If you choose disclosure, be sure that the information is not classified, the unauthorized disclosure of which carries stiff federal penalties.)

Disregard and refuse. When you have exhausted all other options, you may want selectively to resort to riskier behaviors. These include going behind political appointees’ backs to subvert their activities, say by picking up the phone and countermanding their directions. In extreme cases, you may have outright to refuse direct orders to the appointee’s face. Though such actions seem like a fasttrack to termination, you may still be protected by the fact that overwhelmed political appointees might hesitate to go through the onerous process of finding a politically reliable replacement. Remember, the longer you stay in, the harder you make it for Trump to do what he wants. Know your rights. If the worst happens and your agency moves to terminate you, you can still fight back. There are multiple avenues an employee designated for dismissal can pursue to delay, reduce, or reverse agency penalties against them.1 The beauty of these options is that they can take months or even years to resolve and may be appealed to higher bodies, further extending the process. All the while, you are collecting a salary and occupying a full-time equivalent (FTE) position that your agency can’t fill until you finally depart. (This is not legal advice. If you find yourself in this situation, please seek a lawyer.)

Keith Edwards writes in his No Lies Detected Substack on how civil servants can show resistance to the tyrannical Trump 2.0 Regime from within.

[probablyasocialecologist]

On one hand, it is understandable that diasporic Africans, after centuries of dispossession and racism, are drawn to the aspirations of returning to the African continent. Long before 2019, African Americans have relocated back to Africa, drawn and inspired by these nations’ liberation movements, including prominent academics such as Maya Angelou and W. E. B. Du Bois, who made Ghana their home under the invitation of Nkrumah, while members of the Black Panther Party sought refuge in Tanzania, influenced by Nyerere’s embrace of pan-Africanism under his Ujamaa framework. Even then at the height of the pan-Africanist movement, however, there were noted tensions between these expats and indigenous Africans, as noted in Saidiya Hartman’s Lose Your Mother, where she notes how Ghanaians resented expats for occupying land and “presuming to know what was best for Africa.” These diasporic frictions have persisted to present day, as some African Americans have made direct attempts to claim African citizenship. While the bulk of the efforts have taken place in Ghana, one US citizen who has lived in Kenya since 2008 petitioned for recognition as a Kenyan citizen, citing ancestral rights. While most African Americans who are descended from enslaved people trace their lineage to West Africa, his choice of Kenya as his ancestral home was informed by the Abuja Proclamation, a pan-African declaration sponsored by the African Union in 1993. This proclamation calls upon all African states “to grant entrance as of right to all persons of African descent and right to obtain residence in those African states if there is no disqualifying element on Africans claiming the right to return to his ancestral home”—an idyllic goal that has yet to be sustainably implemented in reality beyond catering to elite classes of the Black diaspora. As the push for economic growth continues, African nations such as Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda, where tourism is central to GDP, are likely to begin marketing themselves as relocation destinations for the Black diaspora. While African Americans may not have explicit ancestral ties to East Africa, the region’s infrastructure and perceived stability may attract more returnees. It would not be surprising to see these nations adopt policies similar to South Africa’s “digital nomad” visas to facilitate long-term diaspora migration. Given the circumstances, it is easy to direct anger towards the incoming communities of Black expats, who seem to be reaping the benefits of this current incentivized hierarchy. Most of these newcomers, however, are also victims of the neoliberal structures of class exploitation that disenfranchise Black communities across the globe, particularly in America. The real culprits remain the African political and economic elite and the Western powers, former colonizers, and financial institutions who shape their self-interest and continue to amass capital at the expense of genuine racial solidarity, distorting radical unifying principles through the sanitizing process of elite capture.

2 May 2025

[saywhat-politics]

On Thursday, July 31, Brent Leatherwood officially resigned from his position as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).

Leatherwood, in a press release, announced, "After nearly four years leading this institution, it is time to close this chapter of my life. It has been an honor to guide this Baptist organization in a way that has honored the Lord, served the churches of our Convention, and made this fallen world a little better."

Religion News Service's (RNS) Bob Smietana, reporting on Leatherwood's resignation, stresses that Leatherwood's last year at ERLC was "tumultuous" — and that he was often criticized by supporters of President Donald Trump who resented the fact that he wasn't overtly MAGA.

"Leatherwood, who took office in 2022 after serving as interim leader for a year, is the third ERLC president in a row to step down under fire," Smietana explains. "Like his predecessor Russell Moore, who stepped down in 2021, Leatherwood was criticized for not being in line with President Donald Trump's MAGA agenda. Critics also say the agency has been out of touch with local churches and has become too liberal on issues such as immigration. Those critics had called for Leatherwood's resignation.

Leatherwood's resignation is generating a lot of discussion on X, formerly Twitter. And some Trump supporters are glad to see him go.

Right-wing pundit Megan Basham tweeted, "Brent Leatherwood is officially out at the @ERLC. This is a step in the right direction toward undoing Russell Moore’s progressive influence and agenda, which Leatherwood continued to carry out. But it is not enough. The ERLC now needs to commit to finding leadership that will reflect the priorities of Southern Baptists rather than the priorities of DC elites. To start with, it must immediately sever all ties with the (George) Soros-backed amnesty group, the Evangelical Immigration Table. Now."

X user Will Campbell wrote, "Correction: The ERLC now needs to commit to finding leadership that will reflect biblical teaching and its application to modern priorities against DC elites. This would necessarily require severing all ties with Soros-backed groups."

Oklahoma State Sen. Dusty Deevers, a MAGA Republican, posted, "I wish Brent the best but am glad he no longer represents Southern Baptists in the political realm. Our next President should never oppose SBC pastors working to abolish abortion or give aid to politicians pursuing amnesty. We need convictional, Biblically sound Christian leadership that stands resolutely against cultural chaos and for distinctly Christian ethics and the Lordship of Christ in all spheres."

 Far-right Christian nationalist Christopher Paul tweeted, "Good riddance."

But not all X users were cheering Leatherwood's departure.

 The Rev. Matt Carr, pastor at the Back Creek Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, tweeted, "Brent Leatherwood was very consistent on pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Christian sexual ethic, pro-religious liberty etc. When they say they want someone more 'conservative' they don't mean more biblical fidelity on issues. They mean more aligned with Trump/MAGA."

READ MORE: The truth finally trickled out of Donald Trump — but the media largely ignored it

In a separate tweet, Carr wrote, "The ERLC (which I'm on record asking why it should exist in the first place) was about influencing public policy with Christian principles. That influence will likely be flowing in the opposite direction, continuing the corrosive effect Trump has had for the last decade."

Read the full Religion News Service (RNS) article at this link.

Report typos and corrections to: feedback@alternet.org.

[alainamama17]

The Shadows of History: Parallels and Warnings in American Democracy

As a historian, I am acutely aware that while history does not repeat itself, it often presents echoes that serve as warnings for the future. The United States today stands at a crossroads, with certain elements reminiscent of 1930s Nazi Germany and the ambitious plans of Project 2025, raising concerns about the direction in which the country is heading.

The 1930s in Germany were marked by the rise of authoritarianism, a period where democratic institutions were systematically dismantled in favor of a totalitarian regime. The parallels drawn between that era and the current political climate in the United States are not to suggest an identical repetition of events, but rather to highlight concerning trends that, if left unchecked, could undermine the very foundations of American democracy.

**Project 2025 and the Unitary Executive Theory**

Project 2025, a conservative initiative developed by the Heritage Foundation, aims to reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda of the Republican Party, should they win the 2024 presidential election. Critics have characterized it as an authoritarian plan that could transform the United States into an autocracy. The project envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly in economic and social policies, and the role of federal agencies.

This initiative bears a resemblance to the early strategies employed by the Nazi Party, which sought to consolidate power and align all aspects of government with their ideology. The unitary executive theory, which asserts absolute presidential control over the executive branch, is a central tenet of Project 2025. This theory echoes the power consolidation that occurred under Hitler's regime, where legal authority was centralized to bypass democratic processes.

**The Erosion of Democratic Norms**

In both historical and contemporary contexts, the erosion of democratic norms is a precursor to the loss of liberty. The United States has witnessed a polarization of politics, where partisan interests often override the common good. The Supreme Court, once a non-partisan arbiter of the Constitution, has been accused of partisanship, with decisions increasingly influenced by political ideologies rather than constitutional law. This shift mirrors the way the judiciary in Nazi Germany became a tool for enforcing the will of the regime, rather than a protector of the constitution.

**The Role of Propaganda and Media**

Propaganda played a crucial role in Nazi Germany, shaping public opinion and suppressing dissent. Today, the media landscape in the United States is deeply divided, with outlets often serving as echo chambers that reinforce ideological beliefs. This division hampers the ability of citizens to engage in informed discourse and make decisions based on factual information, a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

**Civil Liberties and Minority Rights**

The targeting of minority groups was a hallmark of Nazi policy, justified by a narrative of nationalism and racial purity. In the United States, there has been a rise in xenophobia and policies that discriminate against certain groups. The protection of civil liberties and minority rights is essential to prevent the kind of societal divisions that can lead to the marginalization of entire communities.

**Conclusion**

The parallels between the United States today, Project 2025, and 1930s Nazi Germany serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of democracy. It is imperative that as Americans, we remain vigilant against the forces that seek to undermine democratic institutions and principles. The lessons of history implore us to safeguard the values of liberty, equality, and justice, lest we allow the shadows of the past to shape our future.

As a historian and educator, I believe it is our responsibility to draw upon these parallels not to incite fear, but to inspire action. We must engage in civic education, promote critical thinking, and encourage participation in the democratic process. Only through collective effort can we ensure that the American experiment continues to be a beacon of hope and freedom for the world.

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review X (federal 2025): FUSION | Planet Rescue | Whistleblower Protection | Innovation

Running where: five states for the Senate (not TAS), plus a smattering of House seats across four states (not TAS or WA)

Prior reviews: federal 2022 (which links to my past reviews of most constituent parties), VIC 2022

For newly allied party Australian Progressives, see: federal 2016, federal 2019, federal 2022

What I said before: “It’s not as left-wing as some, it emphasises pragmatic reaction rather than ideological ambition, and some of the policies are clearly a little underdone in trying to reconcile five platforms, but most of their positions contain worthwhile goals.”

What I think this year: This is the longest review I’ve ever written, so if nobody sticks with me to the end then I understand. It’s also a much more negative review than in previous editions. This might surprise some readers, including a couple that I know have volunteered for Fusion before. But the more I worked my way through Fusion's materials, the more I came to dislike this party. The heavy use of images that are quite clearly from generative Artificial Intelligence made matters worse: superficial soulless visuals for a superficial soulless party.

Fusion coalesced in 2022 after Australia’s lax party registration laws were tightened. Its original name was FUSION: Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, which embodied the names or main focus of the broadly centrist and left-wing parties that had joined forces. These parties retain an independent existence with individual websites, though these also direct the reader to the main Fusion site. The name has been updated to articulate some core principles of this union, or fusion if you will. As I have said before, putting party positions or slogans in the registered name looks ridiculous.

Earlier this year, Fusion formed an alliance with two extra parties. One, the Australian Progressives, is not too objectionable, although I hadn’t realised they still existed. They have gone from being broadly centre-left in their presentation to pitching themselves as not “‘left’ or ‘right’—we’re about moving forward, ie. PROGRESS”. They describe themselves as motivated by “evidence, not ideology”, which makes them a good fit with Fusion (I’ll discuss that claim more below), and state that they sit in the “sensible centre”, a phrase almost invariably used by people who are neither sensible nor in the centre (usually well to the right).

The other partnership that Fusion established is incredibly, unbelievably stupid. They have welcomed into their camp Democracy First, a decidedly right-wing anti-migrant vehicle of serial candidate Vern Hughes. Yes, the Vern Hughes. This is shockingly bad and raises serious questions about the judgement of Fusion's leadership. Hughes has belonged to more parties than you’ve had hot dinners in the last week: by my count, he has stood as a candidate for at least eight groupings, promoted numerous extra parties that never attained registration, and his most recent outing was in 2022 for the lunar-right Australian Federation Party (now the Trumpet of Patriots). Democracy First is openly Trumpian—they have a 12-point platform (more a rant) to “drain the swamp in Canberra”—and it is an unwelcome inclusion in the Fusion fold.

Democracy First worked through a bunch of monikers before settling on the current name, including Sensible Centre (that phrase again!). Their Twitter handle is still @sensiblecentre_ and I had to make a thread in September 2021 warning people to pre-emptively block them because they were searching keywords and aggressively trolling people and peddling anti-vax “plandemic” nonsense. Whether it was Hughes or not (and I won’t be surprised if it was him), it was and is discrediting to the group. Hughes is a self-interested crank whose ideology and principles are flexible, but flexibly right-wing. If he is presenting himself to Fusion as having had some revelation to disown far-right positions, more fool them; the bloke has long since proven himself disreputable.

What all this means is that if you have a Fusion candidate in your House division or Fusion is running a Senate ticket in your state, the people involved could believe in anything from techbro futurism, urgent climate action, or “sensible centre” right-wing aggression. This significant variation in approach and priorities means that you should look up the people standing for Fusion on your ballot because you might find yourself more or less favourably disposed towards them than the party as a whole.

I’m now going to turn to the policies and principles that the party has posted on the main Fusion website. Before I launch into my criticisms, let me note key things that I like: the emphasis on whistleblower protections, the promotion of university teaching and research, the strong emphasis on combatting climate change and restoring damaged environments, and many of the digital privacy policies inherited from the Pirate Party. I do, though, wonder if the Pirate movement’s time has passed: I agree that copyright and intellectual property laws need reform, but perhaps in different ways now that we need to protect authors and artists from AI companies who unethically use and even steal material to train their lake-draining hallucination machines (which, as I noted above, this party seems quite happy to use for illustrations rather than photos and art by real people).

Fusion articulate both a set of values and separate principles. They spent a shocking amount of words, including some diagrams, to say not much at all. Both pages are laden with buzzwords that can basically mean whatever you want them to mean, although some of the discussion of values is useful, e.g. that their approach to personal liberty is one of “maximum net freedom”, where one individual’s freedom to act can be restricted justifiably if it limits the freedom of others. The principles page is tedious jargon that reads like the sort of emails many of us would have received from senior managers who use fancy language to express banalities.

Two major conceits animate Fusion. First, they have a frankly naïve fantasy that they can bring together divergent political interests (e.g. greener-than-Green environmentalists and Democracy First right-wingers) to achieve something despite their disagreements. Second, they believe they can do this because they are uniquely focused on evidence, not ideology. These are the sort of people who think “ideological” and “evidence-based” politics are polar opposites.

In reality, all political actors are ideological, and to deny this is either ignorant or dishonest. It is akin to people who claim they do not speak with an accent, only people from other places have accents. Leo Puglisi interviewed Miles Whiticker (NSW lead Senate candidate) and raised this topic. Whiticker defended the party as not taking a “zealous theory-driven position” that is pursued whatever the evidence might be. He defines being centrist as having the attitude that “if the theory clashes with the evidence, we are more likely to support the evidence than the theory”, which is absolutely not what centrism is and basically everyone at every position on the political spectrum believes they follow the evidence.

(also, yes, I keep using interviews from 6 News because Leo is doing the lord’s work for political nerds everywhere, conducting detailed interviews with politicians beyond the major parties)

Let’s turn now to a specific policy: Fusion’s housing policy is a mess. It is a total mess. You are not prepared for how much of a mess this is. Most of Fusion’s policy pages are brief, with bullet points and short paragraphs. The housing policy reads as someone’s passion project and it runs to 10,700 words. The average person is not reading nearly 11,000 words from a party they’ve never heard of, even if they’re good words. And these are not good words. The main proposals revolve around tinkering with taxes. There are a bunch of proposals for much greater government intervention in the rental sector through apps and transparency websites that veer into micromanagement, running counter to Fusion’s own “our party” page that suggests if you support mandated regulatory approaches you’d prefer the Greens. Fusion’s rental proposals would be much more invasive and meddlesome than anything the Greens propose to reform the sector.

The policy jumps all over the show. For instance, it favourably cites NIMBY economist and former Sustainable Australia candidate Cameron Murray. For the purposes of this review, I asked a well-read YIMBY friend for his reaction if told a party was citing Murray favourably and he replied that it’s “almost certainly bad”. At the same time, however, the housing policy favourably refers to Auckland’s zoning reforms, which Murray has downplayed (to such an extent Stuart Donovan and Matthew Maltman absolutely savaged him in a piece reviewing the effects of Auckland’s zoning reforms last December). It’s a muddled assortment of ideas.

But the funniest part is the favourable inclusion of Saudi Arabia’s linear-city megaproject The Line, part of its larger Neom development. You’ve got to be huffing farts to think The Line is a good idea, but the best bit is the bumbling invocation of David Ricardo’s idea of comparative advantage. This concept, central to classical economics, states that countries should focus economic activity on specialisation in industries where they have the greatest efficiencies and lowest opportunity costs. Apparently, the comparative advantage of The Line is that it “will have the economic advantages of being in the desert, and having an uncharacteristic layout”. Is that the best you can do? The comparative advantage of being in the desert.

Another questionable policy is that Fusion wants to declare that ageing is a disease. They pitch this as promoting quality-of-life measures, not as a life-extension policy: if ageing is declared a disease, rather than a natural part of existence, they think this is the magic trick that will enable doctors to prescribe medications that have secondary anti-ageing effects to people who do not have the condition or problem the medication is primarily meant to treat. This has a host of questionable implications and potential for misuse. It’s all a bit silly: there are much better ways to promote quality-of-life measures and healthy ageing than to say the process itself is a disease. The strong whiff of techbro futurism that permeates the party makes me think this is really a policy for anti-ageing fans who think Bryan Johnson is something other than a muddle-headed weirdo.

I could pick on other aspects of their policies and principles but this is quite long enough and I don’t want to repeat the length of their housing policy. Although Fusion contains multitudes, much of it feels driven by the old Future/Science Party, which was very blinkered—the classic science bros who badly need at least a basic education in the humanities. If this is a party made for and by STEM bros, then you can consider me a HASS fellow.

Are there worse parties on the ballot? Yes, many. But they are straightforwardly terrible. Fusion had potential, and I was a fan of some of the parties that came together to form it. I’ve spent so much time on this review because Fusion sit much closer to the positions that I support than, say, Family First, and I think it’s worth articulating why—in 2025 at least—they do not represent a good option, especially not for left-wing voters.

(also, sorry Fusion bros, please don’t @ me: I’ve argued with some of you in DMs before about my reviews and it was very boring)

Recommendation: Give FUSION | Planet Rescue | Whistleblower Protection | Innovation a weak to middling preference. Some individuals might warrant a slightly better preference; any that are aligned with Democracy First should be ranked lowly indeed.

Website: https://www.fusionparty.org.au/

Update, 23 April: Fusion have stepped on even more rakes when announcing their HTVs, which I have discussed here.

[accountability-movement]

I've compiled everything I could find on who is leading this coup and why. PLEASE READ!

Introduction

Democracies do not collapse overnight, nor do they always fall to military force. Sometimes, they erode from within, their institutions hollowed out by those who seek to replace democratic governance with personal power. In the United States, a systematic purge of career civil servants is underway, targeting those who simply followed the law under previous administrations. The president has declared his refusal to enforce laws he dislikes, and Congress stands by, enabling this erosion of democracy through inaction. Meanwhile, unelected billionaires, particularly in the tech sector, are consolidating their power, using economic dominance to exert unprecedented political control.

Those resisting this transformation are being removed from government, while those who facilitate it are rewarded with influence over critical federal functions. What we are witnessing is not just a shift in policy or ideology; it is an orchestrated attack on the foundational principles of democratic governance. The United States is shifting from a government by the people to one controlled by private interests, operating outside the constraints of law and accountability.

Meanwhile, the tech elite, with unprecedented access to the White House, are transforming their economic power into political domination. Elon Musk's associates have gained access to crucial government databases, controlling trillions in federal funds and personal data. Peter Thiel-backed firms are securing lucrative defense contracts, embedding themselves deep within national security structures. Social media executives and billionaire owned media channels have been manipulating discourse by selectively amplifying or suppressing political narratives that benefit their corporate interests, effectively shaping public opinion and policy decisions. This unprecedented infiltration is turning Silicon Valley’s economic dominance into direct political control, further eroding democratic governance.

Those brave enough to resist are being removed, while enablers are rewarded with expanded control over government functions. This is not just political maneuvering—we are witnessing the deliberate dismantling of constitutional democracy.

The difference between legitimate policy disagreements and what we are facing now is stark. Disagreeing on taxation or immigration policy is part of democratic debate. But refusing to enforce laws, purging civil servants for upholding legal mandates, and allowing private entities to seize control of government functions is not just politics—it is an outright attack on governance itself.

A Warning From Our Forefathers

Every American who has ever fought to preserve democracy—from the battlefields of Gettysburg to the beaches of Normandy—did so with the belief that future generations would safeguard the nation’s foundational principles. The sacrifices of these patriots were made to protect a government that serves the people, not one ruled by unchecked personal power.

James Madison wrote: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

George Washington said: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."

Benjamin Franklin believed that: "In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns."

John Jay warned "The executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it; therefore, it must be restrained by the other branches."

Harry Truman warned "When even one American—who has done nothing wrong—is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."

President Obama made it clear: "Democracy does not require uniformity. Our founders argued. They quarreled. They eventually compromised. They expected us to do the same."

Today, we are watching the systematic subversion of constitutional governance. Career officials are being forced out, government functions are being taken over by private individuals, and Congress is abandoning its responsibilities. These actions threaten everything our democracy stands for.

It is understandable that many hesitate to acknowledge what is happening. Accepting the reality of an ongoing coup is frightening. However, we must confront the facts: Donald Trump and Elon Musk are orchestrating a systematic takeover of the federal government, using illegal means to consolidate power. They are violating civil service protections, dismantling congressionally mandated agencies without authority, and purging public servants based on ideology rather than lawfulness.

This is an emergency that demands urgent action from every American who values democracy. The window for effective resistance narrows with each passing day.

The Transformation of Government into Private Power

The American Constitution is more than just a framework for governance—it is the greatest experiment in self-rule through law and reason rather than brute force. The Founders built a system designed to prevent any one individual from amassing unchecked power. They created a structure in which democratic institutions, not personal authority, would shape national decisions.

Now, we are watching as this system is methodically dismantled. The checks and balances that safeguard our democracy—civil service protections, congressional oversight, and institutional integrity—are being stripped away, not by revolution but by a calculated strategy of institutional capture.

Treasury Systems Seized: A 25-year-old Musk employee took control of the U.S. Treasury’s payment system, effectively managing $5.5 trillion in government spending—including IRS refunds, Medicare, and Social Security payments—without oversight. This also granted him and his colleagues access to our Social Security numbers and our tax records.

Federal Employee Purges: Musk and his allies have expanded their ideological purges into the CIA and FBI, removing officials who played roles in prosecuting January 6 rioters.

Agency Closures: Musk has moved to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, despite Congress controlling its funding.

Deportation Policies: Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced El Salvador’s offer to house deportees and imprisoned Americans in a "mega-prison." Its prison system has been widely criticized for torture, arbitrary detentions, and abuse. Outsourcing U.S. deportees and incarcerated citizens to a foreign prison with documented human rights violations could lead to severe mistreatment and loss of legal protections, setting a dangerous precedent for the U.S. justice system.

This is not theoretical—it is happening in real time. The government is being reshaped into a tool that benefits the wealthiest elite, at the expense of democracy itself.

The Role of "Unhumans" and the Justification for Authoritarianism

A key element of this takeover is the ideological justification found in the book Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions by Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec. This book, endorsed by figures such as JD Vance, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump Jr., and Tucker Carlson, openly dehumanizes the political left, labeling them as "unhuman" and advocating for their removal from society.

JD Vance, our vice-president, endorsed Unhumans, stating:

"In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back."

The book explicitly praises authoritarian leaders like Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet for their suppression of leftist movements and suggests that similar measures may be necessary.

The Tactics They Advocate

Unhumans lays out a clear strategy for eliminating democratic opposition:

Public Humiliation and Ridicule – Use shame, disgrace, and harassment to undermine political opponents.

Creation of Blacklists – Target individuals in academia, media, and government to be exposed and removed from positions of influence.

Rejection of Democratic Processes – Suggest alternative means to securing power beyond elections.

Advocacy for Capital Punishment – Argue for executing political opponents as seen in historical authoritarian regimes.

Promotion of Righteous Violence – Justify the use of force against "unhumans."

Support for Vigilantism – Encourage private action outside legal channels to target opposition.

Suppression of Opposing Ideologies – Use censorship and coercion to silence dissent.

Encouragement of Political Persecution – Employ legal and extralegal methods to eliminate political threats.

The Butterfly Revolution: How Big Tech Will Dismantle Our Democracy

The term "Butterfly Revolution" has recently been associated with a proposed strategy to dismantle the U.S. government and replace it with a corporate-style autocracy. This concept is linked to Curtis Yarvin, a political theorist known for advocating the replacement of democratic institutions with a CEO-led governance model. 

The plan envisions a "reboot" of the American government, discarding democratic institutions in favor of a system that mirrors a techno-monarchy, where technology leaders hold significant power.

Here are the 7 Major Steps the Butterfly Revolution recommends to dismantle democracy:

Step 1: Campaign on Autocracy: They tell the public democracy is broken and that the only way forward is strongman rule. Trump, Vance, and their billionaire backers openly reject democracy and promise to “take power back” from voters, courts, and Congress. Thiel, Musk, and others have publicly stated their opposition to democracy. Trump’s “Freedom Cities” and Yarvin’s “Patchwork” plan both envision corporate city-states run by billionaire CEOs instead of elected officials. 

Step 2: Purge the Bureaucracy: They fire or replace government workers with loyalists to eliminate checks and balances. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has already embedded agents inside federal agencies, giving him direct power over government operations. DOGE is modeled after Yarvin’s RAGE (Rapid Administrative Government Euthanasia)—designed to gut the administrative state and centralize power. Federal workers who resist are fired, replaced, or silenced.

Step 3: Ignore the Courts: They treat the judiciary as irrelevant—refusing to obey rulings that block their agenda. Musk and Vance have already dismissed federal judges’ rulings against DOGE’s actions. JD Vance has publicly questioned whether the courts have any authority over the executive branch. Once the courts are powerless, the rule of law collapses. 

Step 4: Co-Opt the Congress: They bully, buy, or bypass lawmakers to eliminate legislative oversight. Thiel and his allies have poured billions into Trump’s campaign and other far-right candidates to ensure that Congress is filled with loyalists. If Congress resists, the executive circumvents them with executive orders and corporate-backed policymaking (via Musk’s DOGE). Once Congress stops being an independent check, democracy is over. 

Step 5: Centralize Police and Power: They replace local law enforcement with federalized, AI-driven policing. AI and surveillance tech—controlled by these billionaires—will enforce their rule instead of independent law enforcement. Federal police powers will be centralized under the executive branch—meaning they answer to Musk, Vance, and Trump, not local governments. Dissent will be criminalized—protests, strikes, and opposition groups will be labeled as threats to “national security.” 

Step 6: Shut Down Elite Media and Academic Institutions: They discredit, defund, and dismantle independent sources of knowledge. Musk already controls Twitter/X, which has become a propaganda machine. Media outlets that criticize the coup will be bought out, shut down, or discredited. Universities will face funding cuts and ideological purges—professors who resist will be fired or censored. Once they control the flow of information, resistance becomes much harder. 

Step 7: Turn Out the People: They mobilize a loyalist base to enforce their rule on the streets. Far-right militias, online extremists, and billionaire-backed “populist” groups will be used to intimidate opponents. Election protests, media boycotts, and AI-powered propaganda will keep the public divided and disoriented. The government will claim they have “the people” on their side—even as they suppress millions. 

The Endgame: Technofascism and Corporate Rule: Once these seven steps are complete, America will no longer be a democracy. Corporate overlords will own the government, manipulate elections, control the police, and rule through AI and surveillance. 

The coup is already in motion. 

What Has Been Done So Far?

Defiance of the Constitution:

Trump is overriding laws and Constitutional protections through executive orders that were designed to safeguard our democracy. Trump is openly bypassing Congress, ignoring judicial rulings, and using executive power to centralize control.

His attack on the 14th Amendment is an attack on American citizens. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, yet Trump is targeting marginalized communities, including immigrants, intersex, and transgender people—denying them rights that our Constitution guarantees.

He is erasing women’s contributions from history. Trump has ordered NASA to purge all mentions of women in leadership from its official websites, an obvious attempt to rewrite history and diminish women’s role in science and government.

He is silencing vital public health information. Trump has removed critical medical data from CDC websites, limiting public access to life-saving health information. Why is the government restricting access to medical knowledge?

He is using the presidency to promote Christian supremacy. Executive orders are being signed to fund Christian nationalist task forces with taxpayer money, in direct violation of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. 

Elon Musk now has control over critical government software. He has direct access to Social Security numbers, tax records, and federal databases. This means he can train AI on every American’s personal data and manipulate government operations behind the scenes.

This jeopardizes our elections. If Musk controls the infrastructure, how can we ever trust that an election is fair again? Who is watching him?

Our entire government software may already be compromised. We do not know what Musk or his allies are doing behind closed doors, nor who they may sell this access to. Our entire digital infrastructure needs to be rewritten before it’s too late.

 Federal employees are being bullied and purged. Trump’s executive orders and Musk’s direct interference have created chaos, resulting in the wrongful firings of dedicated public servants and the deaths of innocent people in disasters like recent plane crashes. Trump shifted the blame to DEI policies, refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of reckless governance.

This Is About the 1% vs. the Rest of Us

This is not about left vs. right—this is about the wealthiest elite seizing control over our government at the expense of everyone else. Trump, Musk, and their billionaire allies are consolidating power, eroding democracy, and rigging the system to serve the ultra-rich while stripping rights away from ordinary people.

What Needs to Be Done NOW

Trump must be impeached before he further dismantles our institutions. 

Elon Musk must be investigated and held accountable for his control over government systems and potential data breaches. 

Congress must act immediately to stop this authoritarian takeover before it’s too late.

This is an organized corporate coup led by the wealthiest 1%, turning America into a billionaire-controlled dictatorship. The time for action is now.

What Can Be Done?

This is not a time for passive observation—action is required. Here’s what you can do:

Support Reliable Sources – Identify and follow media outlets committed to factual reporting.

Speak Out Against Broken Norms – Call out violations of democratic principles.

Organize Locally – Get involved with pro-democracy groups.

Attend Community Meetings – School boards and city councils are where grassroots power begins.

Contact Your Representatives – Demand accountability from lawmakers on appointees and legislation.

Here are some other resources to fight this coup and to gain more information:

“Dark Gothic MAGA” by Blonde Politics on YouTube breaks down podcasts, web seminars, and talks by wealthy elites where they talk about using this administration to achieve their agenda. It explains what the Butterfly Revolution is and how they plan on using it.

The ACLU – Is taking legal action against authoritarianism.

Contact your Senators! https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

GET INVOLVED! The more people that understand what’s going on, the better. Tell your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends, family, and your local and state representatives. The only way to stop this is together!

The time to act is now. Start small, but do not stop. Democracy depends on the vigilance and engagement of its people. If we fail to resist this moment, we may not get another chance.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The New Yorker :: @NewYorker [An advance look at Barry Blitt’s “Left to Their Own Devices,” the cover for next week’s issue.]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 28, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Mar 29, 2025

“Another wipeout walloped Wall Street Friday,” Stan Choe of the Associated Press wrote today. The S&P 500 had one of its worst days in two years, dropping 2%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 715 points, losing 1.7% of its value. The Nasdaq Composite fell 2.7%. On Tuesday, news dropped that the administration’s blanket firings and wildly shifting tariff policies have dropped consumer confidence to a low it has not hit since January 2021. Today’s stock market tumble started after the Commerce Department released data showing that consumer prices are rising faster than economists expected.

AIG chief international economist James Knightley said: “We are moving in the wrong direction and the concern is that tariffs threaten higher prices, which means the inflation prints are going to remain hot.” Business leaders like lower interest rates, which reduce borrowing costs and make it cheaper to finance business initiatives, but with rising inflation, the Federal Reserve will be less likely to cut interest rates.

Makena Kelly of Wired reported today that billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) is planning to move the computer system of the Social Security Administration (SSA) off the old programming language it uses, COBOL, to a new system. In 2017, the SSA estimated that such a migration would take about five years. DOGE is planning for the migration to take just a few months, using artificial intelligence to complete the change.

Experts have expressed concern. Dan Hon, who runs a technology strategy company that helps the government modernize its services, told Kelly: “If you weren’t worried about a whole bunch of people not getting benefits or getting the wrong benefits, or getting the wrong entitlements, or having to wait ages, then sure go ahead.” More than 65 million Americans currently receive Social Security benefits. Today Representative Don Beyer (D-VA) recorded himself calling the SSA and being told by a recording that the wait times were more than two hours and that he should call back. And then the system hung up on him.

Musk told the Fox News Channel today that he plans to step down from DOGE in May, apparently at the end of the 130-day cap for the “special government employee” designation that enables him to avoid financial disclosures. In February, White House staffers suggested Musk would stay despite the limit.

Today the State Department told Congress it is shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) altogether by July 1. Whatever agency functions the administration approves will move into the State Department. Founded by President John F. Kennedy and enjoying bipartisan support, USAID administers programs for global health, disaster relief, long-term economic development, education, environmental protection, and democracy. It is widely perceived to be a key element of U.S. “soft power.”

USAID was created by Congress, and its funds are appropriated by Congress. Congress and the courts have established that the executive branch—the branch of government overseen by the president—cannot kill an agency Congress has created and cannot withhold appropriations Congress has made. The authors of Project 2025 want to challenge that principle and consolidate government power in the hands of the president. It appears they have chosen USAID as the test case.

As Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shatters science and health agencies, the nation’s top vaccine regulator, Dr. Peter Marks, submitted his resignation today after being given the choice to resign or be fired. Dan Diamond of the Washington Post noted that Marks has been at the Food and Drug Administration since 2012 and has been at the head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research since 2016.

In his resignation letter, Diamond says, Marks expressed his deep concern over the ongoing measles outbreak in the Southwest—now more than 450 cases—and warned that the outbreak “reminds us of what happens when confidence in well-established science underlying public health and well-being is undermined.” Marks said that although he was willing to work with Kennedy on his plan to review vaccine safety, “it has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.”

On Tuesday, news broke that Kennedy has tapped anti-vaccine activist David Geier to lead a study looking to link autism to vaccines, although that alleged link has been heavily studied and thoroughly debunked. Infectious disease journalist Helen Branswell notes that Geier does not have a medical degree and was disciplined in Maryland for practicing medicine without a license.

British investigative journalist Brian Deer, who has written about the hoax that vaccines cause autism, told Branswell: “If you want an independent source,… [you] wouldn’t go to somebody with no qualifications and a long track record of impropriety and incompetence.” But, he said, “[i]f you wanted to get in anybody off the street who would come up with the result that Kennedy would like to see, this would be your man.”

Tara Copp of the Associated Press reported today that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has done some targeted staffing, too. His younger brother Phil Hegseth is traveling to the Indo-Pacific with the secretary in his role at the Pentagon as a liaison and senior advisor to the Department of Homeland Security. Hegseth also employed his brother when he ran the nonprofit Concerned Veterans for America, where the younger Hegseth’s salary was $108,000 for his media work. Copp notes that a 1967 law “prohibits government officials from hiring, promoting or recommending relatives to any civilian position over which they exercise control.”

Hegseth and his colleagues are still in the hot seat for uploading the military’s attack plans against the Houthis in Yemen to Signal, an unsecure commercially available messaging app. Yesterday, Nancy A. Youssef, Alexander Ward, and Michael R. Gordon of the Wall Street Journal reported that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz identified a Houthi missile expert whose identity Israel had provided from a human source in Yemen, angering Israeli officials.

Americans, especially those with ties to the military, aren’t happy either. Military, the leading news website for service members, veterans, and their families, titled a story about the scandal “‘Different spanks for different ranks’: Hegseth’s Signal scandal would put regular troops in the brig.” Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt of the New York Times reported that the story had “angered and bewildered” fighter pilots, who say “they can no longer be certain that the Pentagon is focused on their safety when they strap into cockpits.”

At a raucous town hall held today by Republican representative Victoria Spartz (R-IN), the crowd booed Spartz loudly when she said she would not call for the resignations of Waltz, Hegseth, and the rest of the people on the group chat.

All the mayhem created by the administration has created enough backlash that the White House appears concerned about upcoming special elections on April 1. One is for the seat in Florida’s District 6 that Waltz vacated when he became national security advisor. In 2024, Trump won that district by 30 points, and Republicans considered their candidate, state senator Randy Fine, whom Trump has strongly endorsed, to be such a shoo-in that he barely campaigned. His website features pictures of him with Trump but has only bullet points to explain his stand on issues.

Democrat Josh Weil, a middle-school math teacher who has outraised Fine by almost 10 to one, is polling within the margin of error for a victory in a contest where even a 10- to 15-point loss would show a dramatic collapse in Republican support. Weil has tied Fine to Musk’s unpopular DOGE and to the president, as well as to cuts to Social Security and Medicaid.

Trump is now personally campaigning for Fine and for the Republican candidate to fill the seat vacated by former representative Matt Gaetz in Florida District 1. There, Democratic candidate Gay Valimont is running against Republican Jimmy Patronis in a district that elected Trump with about 68% of the vote. Like Fine, Patronis is strongly backed by Trump and wants more cuts to the federal government; Gay is a former state leader for Moms Demand Action and focuses on healthcare and veterans’ services. She has criticized DOGE’s cuts to VA hospitals. Like Weil, she has significantly outraised her opponent.

Republicans are concerned enough about holding the seats that billionaire Elon Musk, who poured more than $291 million into the 2024 election to help Republicans, has begun to contribute to Republicans in Florida. On Tuesday he spent more than $10,000 apiece for texting services for the Florida candidates.

Musk has contributed far more than that—more than $20 million—to the April 1 election for a ten-year seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Trump loyalist Brad Schimel is running against circuit court judge Susan Crawford in a contest that has national significance. Wisconsin is evenly split between the parties, but when Republicans control the legislature and the supreme court, they suppress voting and heavily gerrymander the state in their favor. When liberals hold the majority on the court, they ease election rules and uphold fair maps. Currently, the state gerrymander gives Republicans 75% of the state’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives although voting in 2024 was virtually dead even. The makeup of the court could well determine the congressional districts of Wisconsin through 2041, through the redistricting that will take place after the 2030 census.

Musk has told voters that if Crawford wins, “then the Democrats will attempt to redraw the districts and cause Wisconsin to lose two Republican seats.” Not only has Musk said he is going to Wisconsin to speak before the election, but also he is handing out checks to voters who sign a petition against “activist judges,” a suggestion that it would not be fair to unskew the Republican gerrymander. Last night, Musk advertised a contest that would award two voters a million dollars each, with the condition that the winners had to have already voted.

This morning, Wisconsin Democrats issued a press release noting that Musk had “committed a blatant felony,” directly violating the Wisconsin law that prohibits offering anyone anything worth more than $1 to get them to “vote or refrain from voting.” Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler said that if Schimel “does not immediately call on Musk to end this criminal activity, we can only assume he is complicit.”

Musk deleted the tweet and then, eliminating the language that said people had to have voted, posted that he would give the checks to spokespeople for his petition. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul sued to stop Musk “from any further promotion of the million-dollar gifts” and “from making any payments to Wisconsin electors to vote.” “The Wisconsin Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that elections in Wisconsin are safe, secure, free, and fair,” Kaul said in a statement. “We are aware of the offer recently posted by Elon Musk to award a million dollars to two people at an event in Wisconsin this weekend. Based on our understanding of applicable Wisconsin law, we intend to take legal action today to seek a court order to stop this from happening.”

MeidasTouch reposted Musk’s offer to “personally hand over two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote” and noted: “No matter what side of the aisle you are on, you should be appalled that a billionaire thinks he has the right to buy elections like this.” Former chair of the Ohio Democratic Party David Pepper posted: “Have some pride, America. We are so much better than this guy thinks we are.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Natasha Korecki at NBC News:

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is blocking those who took part in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol from working in state jobs, ignoring President Donald Trump's attempt to offer them a clean slate last week in a sweeping set of pardons and commutations. Late Thursday, Pritzker directed the state’s Department of Central Management Services, the state’s primary hiring authority, to restrict hiring of those who took part in the attack on the Capitol by declaring they had taken part in “infamous and disgraceful conduct that is antithetical to the mission of the State.” “These rioters attacked law enforcement officers protecting people in the Capitol, disrupted the peaceful transfer of power, and undermined bedrock principles of American democracy,” Pritzker said in a written directive obtained by NBC News. “Our State workforce must reflect the values of Illinois and demonstrate honesty, integrity, and loyalty to serving the taxpayers. No one who attempts to overthrow a government should serve in government.”  Pritzker’s new directive marks the first and most direct pushback to Trump’s power spree that has tested the bounds of presidential authority through a fray of executive orders, including some that have drawn judicial rebuke. The Democratic governor of the Midwestern blue state has for years acted as an antagonist to Trump. Pritzker's directive is likely to draw legal challenges, but sources familiar with it said that working through the personnel code was thought to serve as the best legal footing should it face court pushback. 

Good policy for Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) to implement.

January 6th Insurrectionists have NO place working for any state job in the Land of Lincoln.

See Also:

HuffPost: Illinois Gov. Bars Pardoned Jan. 6 Rioters From State Jobs

The Hill, via NewsNation: Illinois governor blocks pardoned Jan. 6 rioters from state jobs

[3nding]

Ettore Meccia, fb

Qualche dettaglio in più...

Due settimane fa tre agenzie federali avvisano l'Università di Harvard che stanno facendo una revisione del suo finanziamento federale (9 miliardi di dollari). Alcuni giorni dopo arriva una lettera nella quale si spiega che l'Università, nonostante il suo prestigio, negli ultimi anni si è comportata male, ma si propongono delle misure per rimediare agli errori commessi e mantenere i finanziamenti federali.("Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise. We therefore present the below provisions as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government").E' una lista di richieste che vanno dalla chiusura di tutti i progetti che riguardino diversità, equità ed inclusione (DEI) alla piena cooperazione con il Dipartimento di sicurezza nazionale (DHS). Pochi giorni dopo arriva una lista di richieste ancora più lunga e dettagliata. Si chiede di mandar via gli studenti coinvolti nelle proteste pro-Palestina del 2023, di sottomettere a controllo i propri programmi, di modificare le regole di ammissione degli studenti stranieri per scongiurare l'ingresso di studenti coinvolti in attività di terrorismo o antisemitismo e di denunciare quegli studenti alle autorità federali.Stiamo revisionando il vostro budget, capisciammè...Alan Garber, il presidente dell'Università non ci sta, ed in una lunga e dettagliata lettera (https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2025/the-promise-of-american-higher-education/) racconta delle richieste (minacce) ricevute rendendole pubbliche e le respinge in toto spiegando che nessuno governo, di qualsiasi colore, può permettersi di mettere le mani su quello che fa un'università privata."No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue."Garber scrive anche che "Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard."Ovvero, col pretesto del contrasto all'antisemitismo voi state cercando di prendere il controllo dell'università.Credo che a questo punto sia veramente necessario ricordare (o riascoltare) le parole pronunciate da JD Vance, ora vicepresidente, nel 2021, e tutto diventerà moto chiaro. "...Tanto di quello che vogliamo fare in questo movimento, in questo paese, io penso che dipenderà fondamentalmente dal controllare attentamente un gruppo di istituzioni molto ostili, in modo specifico, le università, che controllano la conoscenza nella nostra società, che controllano quello che chiamiamo vero e quello che chiamiamo falso, che producono la ricerca che dà credibilità ad alcune delle idee più ridicole che esistano nel nostro paese.Per questo, sono eccitato nel chiudere questa conferenza con queste annotazioni, perché credo che se ognuno di noi vuole fare qualcosa per il nostro paese e per le persone che ci vivono dobbiamo, onestamente ed aggressivamente, attaccare le università in questo paese"

(https://www.facebook.com/ettore.meccia/posts/10233544837392369)

Il governo ha risposto tagliando di 2,3 miliardi il finanziamento dell'Università.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/14/us/harvard-rejects-policy-changes/index.html

PS: semba che anche il MIT stia dicendo no alle richieste

https://orgchart.mit.edu/letters/further-responses-federal-actions

Alla fine Vance aveva ragione, le università sono ostili a quello che questi vogliono fare, chiuderle o metterle sotto controllo.Altri link

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/14/nx-s1-5364829/harvard-rejects-trump-demands-on-dei-and-admissions

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/4/15/harvard-denies-trump-demands/

[mariacallous]

Yesterday the president defied a Supreme Court ruling to return a man who was mistakenly sent to a gulag in another country, celebrated the suffering of this innocent person, and spoke of sending Americans to foreign concentration camps.

This is the beginning of an American policy of state terror, and it has to be identified as such to be stopped.

So let’s begin with language, because language is very important. When the state carries out criminal terror against its own people, it calls them the “criminals” or the the “terrorists.” During the 1930s, this was the normal practice. Looking back, we refer to Stalin’s “Great Terror,” but at the time it was the Stalinists who controlled the language. Today in Berlin stands an important museum called "Topography of Terror"; during the era it documents, it was the Jews and the chosen enemies of the regime who were called "terrorists." Yesterday in the White House, the Salvadoran president showed the way, referring to Kilmar Abrego Garcia as a "terrorist" without any basis whatsoever. The Americans treated him as a criminal, even though he was charged with no crime.

The first part of controlling the language is inverting the meaning: whatever the government does is good, because by definition the its victims are the "criminals" and the "terrorists." The second part is deterring the press, or anyone else, from challenging the perversion by associating anyone who objects with crime and terror. This was the role Stephen Miller played when he said yesterday in the White House that reporters "want foreign terrorists in the country who kidnap women and children."

The control of language is necessary to undermine a legal or constitutional order. Our rule of law begins with notions such as the people and their rights. If politicians shift the framework to "criminals" and "terrorism," then they are shifting the purpose of the state.

In the United States, we are governed by a Constitution. Basic to the Constitution is habeas corpus, the notion that the government cannot seize your body without a legal justification for doing so. If that does not hold, then nothing else does. If we have the law, then violence may not be committed by one person against another on the basis of namecalling or strong feelings. This applies to everyone, above all to the president, whose constitutional function is to enforce the laws.

Trump spoke of asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to find legal ways to abduct Americans and leave them in foreign concentration camps. But by "legal" what is meant are ways of escaping law, not applying it.

It is that anti-constitutional escapism that enables abuse. State terror involves not just the malignant development of state organs of oppression, such as masked men in black vans, but also the withdrawal of the state from its role as a guardian of law. What aspiring tyrants present as "strength," the ability to terrorize innocent people, rests on what might be seen as a more fundamental weakness, which is the withdrawal of the state from the principle of the rule of law. When we have law, we are all stronger; when we lack law, everyone is weaker except for the very few who can direct the coercive power of the state against the rest of us.

In the history of state terror, the escape from law into coercion takes three forms, all of which were on display, incipiently, in the White House yesterday: the leader principle; the state of exception; and the zone of statelessness.

The leader principle, or in German Führerprinzip, is the idea that a single individual directly represents the people, and that therefore all of his actions are by definition legal and proper. In discussions in the White House and thereafter, we see this notion being advanced. Trump's advisors claim that what he is doing is popular. The claim (as in legal filings) that the president is acting from a personal "mandate" from the people has the same problem. Asked on Fox News about the abduction of Americans and their transfer to foreign gulags, Attorney General Pam Bondi said that “these are Americans he is saying who have committed the most heinous crimes in our country.” If it comes down to what “he is saying,” then he is a dictator and the U.S. is a dictatorship. Trump spoke of the need to deport people who "hate our country" or who are "stupid."

The second escape from law is the state of exception. In principle, the Soviet Union was governed by law. Before its greatest exercises of terror, however, the Soviet authorities declared for themselves states of exception. This meant that, on the territory of the Soviet Union itself, it was "legal" (in Bondi's and in Trump's sense) to abduct people and send them to concentration camps: authorities claimed that there was some sort of threat, and so protections could be withdrawn and procedures set aside. People could be abducted in black vans and executed or sent to a camp, "legally," in the sense that the law had been set aside. The notion of the state of exception, important to Soviet practice, was at the center of Nazi theory. As the leading Nazi thinker Carl Schmitt argued, the sovereign is the person who can make an exception. If we are living in normal times, then we think we should be governed by law. But if politicians can use words to make us think that these are exceptional times, then we might accept their lawlessness.

A simple way to escape from law is to move people bodily into a physical zone of exception in which the law (it is claimed) does not apply. Other methods take more time. It is possible to pass laws that deprive people of their rights in their own country. It is possible to carve out spaces on one's own territory where the law does not function. These spaces are concentration camps. In the end, authorities can choose, as in Nazi Germany, to physically remove their citizens into zones beyond their own countries in which they can simply declare that the law does not matter.

This exploitation of purported stateless zones was the main line of the history of the Holocaust. Under Hitler, the Germans did have concentration camps on their own territory, and they did reduce Jews to second-class citizenship, and they did live under a permanent state of exception. But, in the main, the mass murder of German Jews was achieved by their abduction and forced rendition to sites beyond prewar German territory where, German authorities claimed, there was no law.

A probing of this statelessness approach was on display yesterday, as Trump and his advisors claimed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal resident of the United States whom US authorities abducted by mistake and sent to a concentration camp in El Salvador, was now beyond the reach of American law. This is state terror: the state is presented as "strong" in its oppression of a person, but as weak in its ability to respect or enforce law. The idea that the United States can send you to places from which it cannot bring you back is the theoretical basis for a doctrine of statelessness. Call it the Rubio Doctrine: in the words of the secretary of state, "the foreign policy of the United States is conducted by the President of the United States, not by a court." But what that implies is that people forcibly transported beyond the boundaries of the United States can be incarcerated or killed for no reason. That would be "foreign policy."

Will citizenship save people? Obviously it is better to be a citizen than not. Citizenship provides some protection, at least by comparison with its absence, or with statelessness. The problem, though, is that citizens can find themselves borne along with the rationales applied to non-citizens. If we accept that Trump exercises power because of the Führerprinzip, then what is to stop him from saying that the people want to see the forcible rendition of “homegrowns,” of "really bad people, every bit as bad as the ones coming in." If citizens accept that we are living in a state of exception, then they are also accepting that they too can be treated exceptionally. Perhaps worst of all, if citizens accept the notion of stateless zones, of law that only functions as the servant of power, they are inviting their own deportation to places from which we will never return.

If citizens endorse the idea that people named by authorities as "criminals" or "terrorists" have no right to due process, then they are accepting that they themselves have no right to due process. It is due process, and due process alone, that allows you to demonstrate that you are a citizen. Without it, the masked men in the black vans can simply claim that you are a foreign terrorist and disappear you.

Horrible though all of this is, it is still state terror in outline, a test of how Americans will react. We can react by seeing all of this for what it is, and naming it by name: incipient state terror. We can react by associating ourselves with others are repressed before we are. Only in solidarity do we affirm law. We can remind the other branches of government that their functions are being taken over by the executive. Citizens cannot do this alone; they have to remind the rest of the government of its constitutional functions.

The president is claiming core congressional responsibilities when he asserts personal control of immigration policy, criminal law, and the funding of forcible renditions. Congress could very easily pass laws, if a few Republicans found the courage. The president is claiming core judicial functions when he defines himself as judge, jury, and, in the case for forcible renditions to El Salvador, de facto executioner. The phrase "contempt of court" took on vivid life in the White House yesterday.

Even these most basic institutions, the ones defined by our Constitution, do not act on their own. To a very sad degree, Supreme Court justices and members of Congress are already complicit in this experiment in state terror. They might find their way back to an America in which their offices have meaning, but only with the help of we the people.

[misfitwashere]

State Terror

A brief guide for Americans

TIMOTHY SNYDER

APR 15

READ IN APP

Yesterday the president defied a Supreme Court ruling to return a man who was mistakenly sent to a gulag in another country, celebrated the suffering of this innocent person, and spoke of sending Americans to foreign concentration camps.

This is the beginning of an American policy of state terror, and it has to be identified as such to be stopped.

So let’s begin with language, because language is very important. When the state carries out criminal terror against its own people, it calls them the “criminals” or the the “terrorists.” During the 1930s, this was the normal practice. Looking back, we refer to Stalin’s “Great Terror,” but at the time it was the Stalinists who controlled the language. Today in Berlin stands an important museum called "Topography of Terror"; during the era it documents, it was the Jews and the chosen enemies of the regime who were called "terrorists." Yesterday in the White House, the Salvadoran president showed the way, referring to Kilmar Abrego Garcia as a "terrorist" without any basis whatsoever. The Americans treated him as a criminal, even though he was charged with no crime.

The first part of controlling the language is inverting the meaning: whatever the government does is good, because by definition the its victims are the "criminals" and the "terrorists." The second part is deterring the press, or anyone else, from challenging the perversion by associating anyone who objects with crime and terror. This was the role Stephen Miller played when he said yesterday in the White House that reporters "want foreign terrorists in the country who kidnap women and children." 

The control of language is necessary to undermine a legal or constitutional order. Our rule of law begins with notions such as the people and their rights. If politicians shift the framework to "criminals" and "terrorism," then they are shifting the purpose of the state.

In the United States, we are governed by a Constitution. Basic to the Constitution is habeas corpus, the notion that the government cannot seize your body without a legal justification for doing so. If that does not hold, then nothing else does. If we have the law, then violence may not be committed by one person against another on the basis of namecalling or strong feelings. This applies to everyone, above all to the president, whose constitutional function is to enforce the laws.

Trump spoke of asking Attorney General Pam Bondi to find legal ways to abduct Americans and leave them in foreign concentration camps. But by "legal" what is meant are ways of escaping law, not applying it.

It is that anti-constitutional escapism that enables abuse. State terror involves not just the malignant development of state organs of oppression, such as masked men in black vans, but also the withdrawal of the state from its role as a guardian of law. What aspiring tyrants present as "strength," the ability to terrorize innocent people, rests on what might be seen as a more fundamental weakness, which is the withdrawal of the state from the principle of the rule of law. When we have law, we are all stronger; when we lack law, everyone is weaker except for the very few who can direct the coercive power of the state against the rest of us.

In the history of state terror, the escape from law into coercion takes three forms, all of which were on display, incipiently, in the White House yesterday: the leader principle; the state of exception; and the zone of statelessness.

The leader principle, or in German Führerprinzip, is the idea that a single individual directly represents the people, and that therefore all of his actions are by definition legal and proper. In discussions in the White House and thereafter, we see this notion being advanced. Trump's advisors claim that what he is doing is popular. The claim (as in legal filings) that the president is acting from a personal "mandate" from the people has the same problem. Asked on Fox News about the abduction of Americans and their transfer to foreign gulags, Attorney General Pam Bondi said that “these are Americans he is saying who have committed the most heinous crimes in our country.” If it comes down to what “he is saying,” then he is a dictator and the U.S. is a dictatorship. Trump spoke of the need to deport people who "hate our country" or who are "stupid."

The second escape from law is the state of exception. In principle, the Soviet Union was governed by law. Before its greatest exercises of terror, however, the Soviet authorities declared for themselves states of exception. This meant that, on the territory of the Soviet Union itself, it was "legal" (in Bondi's and in Trump's sense) to abduct people and send them to concentration camps: authorities claimed that there was some sort of threat, and so protections could be withdrawn and procedures set aside. People could be abducted in black vans and executed or sent to a camp, "legally," in the sense that the law had been set aside. The notion of the state of exception, important to Soviet practice, was at the center of Nazi theory. As the leading Nazi thinker Carl Schmitt argued, the sovereign is the person who can make an exception. If we are living in normal times, then we think we should be governed by law. But if politicians can use words to make us think that these are exceptional times, then we might accept their lawlessness.

A simple way to escape from law is to move people bodily into a physical zone of exception in which the law (it is claimed) does not apply. Other methods take more time. It is possible to pass laws that deprive people of their rights in their own country. It is possible to carve out spaces on one's own territory where the law does not function. These spaces are concentration camps. In the end, authorities can choose, as in Nazi Germany, to physically remove their citizens into zones beyond their own countries in which they can simply declare that the law does not matter. 

This exploitation of purported stateless zones was the main line of the history of the Holocaust. Under Hitler, the Germans did have concentration camps on their own territory, and they did reduce Jews to second-class citizenship, and they did live under a permanent state of exception. But, in the main, the mass murder of German Jews was achieved by their abduction and forced rendition to sites beyond prewar German territory where, German authorities claimed, there was no law.

A probing of this statelessness approach was on display yesterday, as Trump and his advisors claimed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal resident of the United States whom US authorities abducted by mistake and sent to a concentration camp in El Salvador, was now beyond the reach of American law. This is state terror: the state is presented as "strong" in its oppression of a person, but as weak in its ability to respect or enforce law. The idea that the United States can send you to places from which it cannot bring you back is the theoretical basis for a doctrine of statelessness. Call it the Rubio Doctrine: in the words of the secretary of state, "the foreign policy of the United States is conducted by the President of the United States, not by a court." But what that implies is that people forcibly transported beyond the boundaries of the United States can be incarcerated or killed for no reason. That would be "foreign policy."

Will citizenship save people? Obviously it is better to be a citizen than not. Citizenship provides some protection, at least by comparison with its absence, or with statelessness. The problem, though, is that citizens can find themselves borne along with the rationales applied to non-citizens. If we accept that Trump exercises power because of the Führerprinzip, then what is to stop him from saying that the people want to see the forcible rendition of “homegrowns,” of "really bad people, every bit as bad as the ones coming in." If citizens accept that we are living in a state of exception, then they are also accepting that they too can be treated exceptionally. Perhaps worst of all, if citizens accept the notion of stateless zones, of law that only functions as the servant of power, they are inviting their own deportation to places from which we will never return.

If citizens endorse the idea that people named by authorities as "criminals" or "terrorists" have no right to due process, then they are accepting that they themselves have no right to due process. It is due process, and due process alone, that allows you to demonstrate that you are a citizen. Without it, the masked men in the black vans can simply claim that you are a foreign terrorist and disappear you.

Horrible though all of this is, it is still state terror in outline, a test of how Americans will react. We can react by seeing all of this for what it is, and naming it by name: incipient state terror. We can react by associating ourselves with others are repressed before we are. Only in solidarity do we affirm law. We can remind the other branches of government that their functions are being taken over by the executive. Citizens cannot do this alone; they have to remind the rest of the government of its constitutional functions.

The president is claiming core congressional responsibilities when he asserts personal control of immigration policy, criminal law, and the funding of forcible renditions. Congress could very easily pass laws, if a few Republicans found the courage. The president is claiming core judicial functions when he defines himself as judge, jury, and, in the case for forcible renditions to El Salvador, de facto executioner. The phrase "contempt of court" took on vivid life in the White House yesterday.

Even these most basic institutions, the ones defined by our Constitution, do not act on their own. To a very sad degree, Supreme Court justices and members of Congress are already complicit in this experiment in state terror. They might find their way back to an America in which their offices have meaning, but only with the help of we the people.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from the Associated Press (AP):

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a petition filed by young climate activists who argued that the federal government’s role in climate change violated their constitutional rights, ending a decadelong legal battle that saw many of the plaintiffs grow from children and teenagers into adults.

The landmark case was filed in 2015 by 21 plaintiffs, the youngest 8 years old. They claimed the U.S. government’s actions encouraging a fossil fuel economy violated their right to a life-sustaining climate.

The case — called Juliana v. United States after one of the activists, Kelsey Juliana — was challenged repeatedly by the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, whose lawyers argued it sought to direct federal environmental and energy policies through the courts instead of the political process.

Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit law firm that represented the plaintiffs, said the impact of the lawsuit “cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone.”

“Juliana sparked a global youth-led movement for climate rights that continues to grow,” Olson said in a statement Monday. “It has empowered young people to demand their constitutional right to a safe climate and future. We’ve already secured important victories, and we will continue pushing forward.”

What happened with the case?

The plaintiffs wanted the court to hold a trial on whether the U.S. government was violating their fundamental rights to life and liberty by operating a fossil-fuel based energy system.

The case wound its way through the legal system for years. At one point in 2018, a trial was halted by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts just days before it was to begin.

In 2020, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case dismissed, saying the job of determining the nation’s climate policies should fall to politicians, not judges. But U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon, instead allowed the activists to amend their lawsuit and ruled the case could go to trial.

Last year, acting on a request from the Biden administration, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel issued an order requiring Aiken to dismiss the case, and she did. The plaintiffs then sought, unsuccessfully, to revive the lawsuit through their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our Children’s Trust, responding to new developments at the federal level, is now preparing a new federal action that is “rooted in the same constitutional principles that guided the Juliana case,” Olson said.

[ngdrb]

What has happened to the Republican Party? Why have they abandoned all their principles and beliefs and become so extreme? 

In recent years, the Republican Party has undergone a significant transformation, veering away from its traditional principles and embracing a more extreme ideology. This shift has left many questioning the party's direction and has drawn criticism from both sides of the political aisle.

The Abandonment of Traditional Republican Values

Historically, the Republican Party has been known for its commitment to fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a strong emphasis on individual liberties. However, in recent times, the party has seemingly abandoned these core tenets in favor of a more divisive and polarizing agenda.

Fiscal Responsibility

Once a hallmark of the Republican Party, fiscal responsibility has taken a backseat to other priorities. The party's stance on deficit reduction and responsible spending has become increasingly inconsistent, with many Republicans supporting policies that contribute to growing national debt.

Limited Government

The principle of limited government, which advocates for restraining the size and scope of the federal government, has been overshadowed by an expansionist approach to executive power and centralized authority.

Individual Liberties

The party's traditional commitment to individual liberties, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, has been called into question by some of the party's more extreme positions on issues like immigration and civil liberties.

The Rise of Extremism

The Republican Party's shift towards extremism can be attributed to several factors, including the growing influence of fringe groups, the polarization of political discourse, and the party's embrace of populist rhetoric.

Influence of Fringe Groups

Fringe groups with extreme ideologies have gained a stronger foothold within the Republican Party, shaping its policies and rhetoric. This influence has contributed to the party's move away from its traditional values and towards more extreme positions.

Polarization of Political Discourse

The increasingly polarized nature of political discourse in the United States has played a role in the Republican Party's shift toward extremism. As the divide between the two major parties has widened, the Republican Party has become more ideologically entrenched and less willing to compromise.

Embrace of Populist Rhetoric

The party's adoption of populist rhetoric, which often focuses on creating divisions and appealing to emotions rather than facts, has further fueled the trend toward extremism.

Conclusion

The Republican Party's transformation has left many questioning its future direction and its ability to appeal to a broad range of voters. As the party continues to grapple with internal divisions and external pressures, it remains to be seen whether it will return to its traditional values or continue down the path of extremism.